Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Conspiracy Theories
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Politics : Conspiracy Theories
Message Icon Topic: Rushdie(Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 12
Author Message
Chrysalis
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2041
bullet Posted: 28 August 2010 at 9:29am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

 
If I were to make a public statement that "All Muslims are terrorists", do you think I should be allowed into Pakistan, no matter how I tried to explain it away?  How long do you think I'd even be allowed on this discussion forum if I said things like that?


That would depend on 2 things:

  1. If that's what you actually said. Not if its taken out of context. Its very easy to twist somebody's words into meaning something else. Of course you should have your say - and a chance to explain it. The decision should be based on what you have to say & how you explain it - not having your words explained & interpreted by someone else. That would leave it open to prejudice & propaganda.

    2. The rules law of Pakistan. If Pakistan claims to be the champion of     freedom of expression, tolerance etc - so much so that it uses these values to fight wars in other countries - then yes Pakistan should allow you in as long as you are not an actual physical threat to people i.e. a criminal. Especially if Pakistan makes it a habit of actually giving people asylum on to protect their right to free speech. But if Pakistan makes no such claims, and makes no secret of its censorship + religious policies - then they are within their legal & moral rights to say no.

Of course the UK govt has a right to formulate whatever policies they wish, especially if they protect the people. In fact I think if Zakir Naik wins his lawsuit, he should not go their on principle and make it public knowledge that he does not wish to visit a country that operates on hypocrisy. The point here is to highlight UK's blatant hypocrisy.
 
"So why should any civilized country tolerate a guy who publicly declares, "All Muslims should be terrorists", no matter how he tries to justify it?  It's an inflammatory, dangerous statement whatever the nuances."

Depends on your definition of a 'civilized country'.

While that may the opinion of the vast majority of sheltered western nonmuslims (which they are entitled to) that doesn't make it true.
I think the UK govt needs to re-examine its actual threats in order of priority. The fact that they find Zakir Naik a "threat" is laughable.




Edited by Chrysalis - 28 August 2010 at 9:33am
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."
IP IP Logged
Divya_Mohammed
 
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 14 July 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 44
bullet Posted: 28 August 2010 at 9:50am
Assalam Alaikum to all
 
Dr Zakir Naik is very famous in India amongst Muslims largely and even in Hindu, Chriatian population, his views are accepted.
 
I listen to many of his lectures in my understanding of Muslim Life, Muslim society and Islam and truly loved them. He is an expert in comparative theology and can quote with ease Great Koranic Verses and those of Hadits as well as from Vedas, Bible, Dhammapada etc.
 
I started to grasp certain difficult words and concepts like Jehad in Islam, Dhimmis, man-woman relationship in society and as husband and wife, Kafirs, terrorism, need for burkha for women, blasphemy and on aspects as to how Islamic theology superior philosophically to all others etc.
 
I agree with most of his views and I am enrichened by his views.
 
 
He has sucessfully defended and answered all criticisms levelled by pseudo-intellectuals from other religions by inviting them for open debates, as well as criticisms from so-called Human Rights Groups and Women Group from Western World.
 
He has motivated many people to accept Islam and has contributed immensely to the glory of the True and Fasted Growing Religion Islam and may Allah Almighty bless him in this world and hereafter.
 
Now I can see that non-muslims are jealous of Muslims and Islam and I also realise the damage to the cause of Islam and Muslims by attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan etc.
 
 
Allah Hafiz
Divya Mohammed Iyer
Mumbai, India
 
IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1616
bullet Posted: 28 August 2010 at 11:22am

Originally posted by Chrysalis

If that's what you actually said. Not if its taken out of context. Its very easy to twist somebody's words into meaning something else.

And that is exactly the point.  Naik should know that such inflammatory statements will be twisted, taken out of "context", by many in his audience.  And people may die as a result.  It's irresponsible.

And as I said, even in context, his words are still appalling.  "Every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every anti-social element."  In other words, if you consider homosexuality to be anti-social, you're allowed to "terrorize" gays?  How about abortionists and those who use their services, can you "terrorize" them?  The US military too, I assume that if Nidal Hasan decided they were anti-social then he was justified in "terrorizing" Fort Hood?

While that may the opinion of the vast majority of sheltered western nonmuslims (which they are entitled to) that doesn't make it true.
I think the UK govt needs to re-examine its actual threats in order of priority. The fact that they find Zakir Naik a "threat" is laughable.

Naik is more of a threat to Muslims than anyone else.  Non-Muslims could accept that Islam, like any other group, has its share of crazies who commit atrocities, if only other Muslims would join the rest of us in condemning them unequivocally.  But Naik cannot even speak out against Osama Bin Laden.  He doesn't know.  Maybe by terrorizing America, Bin Laden is following Islam, according to Naik.

If that is his vision of Islam, then then he should not be surprised if he faces discrimination in civilized countries.  And Muslims as a whole, if they cannot distance themselves from the likes of Zakir Naik (who in turn cannot distance himself from Bin Laden), can expect to share in that discrimination.


Edited by Ron Webb - 28 August 2010 at 11:23am
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
Chrysalis
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2041
bullet Posted: 28 August 2010 at 12:06pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Chrysalis

If that's what you actually said. Not if its taken out of context. Its very easy to twist somebody's words into meaning something else.

And that is exactly the point.  Naik should know that such inflammatory statements will be twisted, taken out of "context", by many in his audience.  And people may die as a result.  It's irresponsible.

When it comes to taking things out of context - you can be as careful as you want, but if people want to do that, they will. It cannot be prevented. People even take scriptures such as the Bible, Torah & Qur'an out of context. They should be banned  & held responsible too?

And as I said, even in context, his words are still appalling.  "Every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every anti-social element."  In other words, if you consider homosexuality to be anti-social, you're allowed to "terrorize" gays?  How about abortionists and those who use their services, can you "terrorize" them?  The US military too, I assume that if Nidal Hasan decided they were anti-social then he was justified in "terrorizing" Fort Hood?

Again Ron - that is a matter of YOUR interpretation. The Vast majority of Muslims do not interpret it this way. The average audience member is a peaceful citizen and so understands Zakir's statements within context.

For that person, there is nothing wrong with 'terrorizing the anti-social element' because this could very well include fellow Muslims who may be extremists & involved in bloodshed & violence. It could very well apply to those anti-social elements who are discriminating against or suppressing nonmuslim religious minorities. . . .  Also, they may not share your definition of 'terrorizing' - they may take terrorizing as a psychological tool - not a physical one. Meaning a good Muslim should be such a honorable & just character - that anti-social elements should fear him/her. A good Muslim can find legal ways to fight the anti-social elements, such as lawsuits, reporting to police, taking proactive measures. That is a perfectly acceptable form of 'terrorizing'. Which is what most Muslims take it to be.


Ofcourse your interpretation could be shared by the Crazies - but we must remind ourselves that the Crazies don't need excuses, they don't need Zakir Naik's words taken out of context, because they have their means. Al-Qaeda managed to give Fatwas that served their purpose. They didn't need to rely on popular Muslim scholars. Some don't even need Fatwas. They operate on their own impulses & twisted agendas.

So banning Zakir Naik is NOT preventing those Crazies from posing a threat to the UK. What it is doing is giving them good excuses; 'Aha! Look the UK govt is anti-Muslim and bans Muslim scholars'. What the ban is doing is showcasing Britain's hypocrisy and possibly alienating its Muslim citizens, some/or most of which may have a following for Zakir Naik.


Naik is more of a threat to Muslims than anyone else. 

I may not agree with  everything Zakir Naik does - but the good he has done outweighs any small mistakes he may have made. Not only does he promote inter-religious dialogue, tolerance towards non-Islamic scriptures and religions, but also charity work such as free medical clinics for Muslims & non-Muslims alike. His lectures which are very popular - highlight the importance of awareness, education, female rights, caste discrimination in India etc. One of the things that particularly appealed to me was how he was so vocal against Dowry practices in India and the ignorance many people have regarding how in-laws 'blame' the mother for giving birth to a female child, and female infanticide.

But like I said Ron, someone who would have followed Zakir Naik's work would know better. Not someone who bases their opinions on an out-of-context extract by the biased UK govt


  But Naik cannot even speak out against Osama Bin Laden.  He doesn't know.  Maybe by terrorizing America, Bin Laden is following Islam, according to Naik.

Since when did a public renouncement of Bin Laden become a part of the Visa approval process?

Why can't an individual choose to reserve judgment upon a person simply because some institutions think he is to blame...

If I am a peace-loving citizen, but I don't trust my sources enough to publicly call a person 'evil' - I am bad and a terror-supporter?

Reminds me of Bush's "Either you are with us or against us" mantra.

If that is his vision of Islam, then then he should not be surprised if he faces discrimination in civilized countries.  And Muslims as a whole, if they cannot distance themselves from the likes of Zakir Naik (who in turn cannot distance himself from Bin Laden), can expect to share in that discrimination.


I am sure nobody was surprised. . . including Zakir Naik. By now everybody is gradually starting to get used to how 'Civilised' countries operate.
 
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."
IP IP Logged
xx__Ace__xx
 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100
bullet Posted: 28 August 2010 at 9:02pm
Pffftt, funny how people who I bet haven't once heard Dr Zakir Naik tell us close followers of him what he supposedly preaches. Right.
IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1616
bullet Posted: 29 August 2010 at 7:27pm

Originally posted by Chrysalis

Again Ron - that is a matter of YOUR interpretation. The Vast majority of Muslims do not interpret it this way. The average audience member is a peaceful citizen and so understands Zakir's statements within context.

For that person, there is nothing wrong with 'terrorizing the anti-social element' because this could very well include fellow Muslims who may be extremists & involved in bloodshed & violence.

Yeah, like abortionists, or the US military, right?  Read my lips: terrorism is always wrong.  Leave it to the police (who have strict guidelines against excessive force and are not terrorists by any reasonable standard) to enforce the law and deal with so-called "anti-social elements".  We don't need vigilantes in civilized societies, especially not religiously motivated ones.

A good Muslim can find legal ways to fight the anti-social elements, such as lawsuits, reporting to police, taking proactive measures. That is a perfectly acceptable form of 'terrorizing'. Which is what most Muslims take it to be.

I'm sorry, but any English speaker, Muslim or not, knows that "terrorism" does not mean lawsuits etc.  This special pleading is simply not credible.

Since when did a public renouncement of Bin Laden become a part of the Visa approval process?

I wasn't talking about the visa approval process.  I was talking about why Naik is a threat to Muslims; and the reason, in case I didn't make it clear, is that his statements will only inflame hatred against them.  He may be even more of a threat to Islam's reputation than Al Qaeda, etc., because the terrorists are a tiny minority, while Naik seems to represent the views of the broader Muslim community.

Why can't an individual choose to reserve judgment upon a person simply because some institutions think he is to blame...

If he were merely reserving judgement I might think him merely ignorant; but he goes on to say: "if he is terrorizing America the terrorist, ... he’s following Islam."  Once again, apparently terrorism can be a good thing, depending on the victim.  According to Naik, anyway.

Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
peacemaker
Male Islam
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 29 December 2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3058
bullet Posted: 31 August 2010 at 10:49am

Assalmau Alaikum,

I think a personality such as Dr. Zakir Naik, who has written hundreds of articles and immensely contributed to Islamic literature to guide so many people, should be given the benefit of due process.

He has unequivocally spoken at many occasions against all forms of extremism and terrorism, and deserves more thoughtful consideration.

Let the authorities in place deal with that.

Peace

Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 12
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com